What's happening is that the inclusion of invalid pairs is going to cause your tests to be generated by a different version of the Hexawise algorithm. This version has better precision in respecting invalid pairs, but the performance is not up to snuff yet. Because of this, today we limit it to generating 2-way tests.

The performance of this algorithm is something we've been working on hard over the past couple of months. We have it generating up to 6-way tests in our test environments. The performance and stability are just not there yet though to put these improvements into production yet. We'll get there soon though.

Any idea when this will be implemented? The tests I'm trying to create contain many invalid pairs and value expansions. The tests cases being produced from this are fairly limited at the moment. So the ability to increase the strength would be really beneficial.

Thank you for checking back. We have the feature implemented but not yet fully tested / ready to be pushed into production. Since my last post, we have needed to temporarily adjust our short term development priorities. In particular, we needed to step away from our plan of putting that feature into production in order to wrap up development of a standalone test generation appliance (AKA "private cloud" or "cloud-in-a-box" solution) that we have been asked to deliver to one of the world's largest global banks.

I don't know how many more days of testing we'll need to do on the hardware appliance or the n-wise plus constraint handling feature you're asking about. In the mean time, if you'd would like, I can give you special, limited access to a different, non-public instance of Hexawise for you to run your tests. Using our non-public instance, you would be able to not only generate pairwise software testing solutions but also more comprehensive n-wise solutions (3-way, 4-way, 5-way, and 6-way combinatorial testing solutions). You'll be able to do this for tests even when invalid pairs exist (e.g., constraint handling will be handled with n-wise testing solutions).

That's pretty odd. The feature is working generally. I'd like to follow up with you on this to see what the problem might be for you. Drop me a note at sean period johnson < at > hexawise period com so we can dig into the details.